rockforever:xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

You know, most of those places were doing pretty well on their own before the Brits got there.

Plus most of the places are far worse off due to British or other western intervention.

I think he was making a comparison to the French. Look at all the former French territories...some of the most distraught places on earth./haiti, madagascar, algeria (well the civil war), mali, congo, syria (i think it was during the early 1900's), etc...

ThatGuyFromTheInternet:xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.

When it is stone age vs. high tech, high tech wins 9 times out of 10. Just the way things are.

xynix:The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

GORDON:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.

When it is stone age vs. high tech, high tech wins 9 times out of 10. Just the way things are.

Yeah, that 10th time it's always some asshole with a spear, knocking out my tanks.

xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.I dunno... Australia, Canada, NZ are pretty good testimonies to our ancestor's skills and maybe Sith Efrica might have been but for the Boers and their fkd up ideas. But India was pre existing when they got there, it was just a case of pushing a dilapidated but magnificent old money making machine out of the barn and giving it a quick service. Imperialists loved India.But much of Africa's messed up borders bears witness to the French and the Brits cack handed cluelessness.

ThatGuyFromTheInternet Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.i think you're confusing the British Empire with the German attempts at empire.Who the hell is going to sell you next year's crop or harvest that sweet, sweet sugar tea, coffee and spices you've got customers queuing up for? Zombies?Murdering people is (usually) bad for business and the British empire was about business.

If Britain was good at nation building then she would still have a few more nations under her belt.What they were good at was spreading influence with the power of their Navy. But even with that they left a trail of chaos around the globe.

/Israel alone should be proof that the Queen knew fark all bout making nations./Africa never did recover from colonization, and probably won't within our lifetimes.

1. Be land locked. (They don't like to have to walk very far.)2. Be not worth the trouble (lousy climate, no resources).3. Be neutral but heavily armed. You mind your business, they'll mind your guns. Hell, they'll even sell them to you.4. Be too small to find on a map.

My theory about Sweden is that it was just a matter of luck. Sweden was a considerable power for a while but with the constant shifting alliances in Europe, the UK and Sweden simply never ended up on opposite sides long enough to fight each other seriously. Both countries have played a similar game of constitutional monarchy, partial socialism, liberal-conservatism and avoidance of entangling alliances that didn't have something it for them.

It's like those house fires which burn everything except one small corner or pocket where the fire didn't reach. Sweden was in an air pocket at any time when the UK was flaming European powers in order to maintain the famous "Balance of Power".

Switzerland has the advance of being d) all of the above. It is rich because it's population is industrious and educated, not because it has resources. In fact, it has to import almost everything but food (only 50% imports) and water. If anybody decided to kick Swiss butt they could either put up one Hell of a fight or simply leave. Either way, you're stuck with a bunch of mountains and valleys worth little or nothing without the Swiss themselves. But then who will hold your coat while you fight? You can't count on Canadians doing it every time.

Thereal problem is...how do we blame England's imperialism, colonization, and basically, war on religion. This is a dilly of a pickle because it really is nationalism and commerce and not religion. Hmmm. Where's an atheist. We need some revisionist history here.

Proteios1:Thereal problem is...how do we blame England's imperialism, colonization, and basically, war on religion. This is a dilly of a pickle because it really is nationalism and commerce and not religion.

Lsherm:Difference of degrees. The Roman Empire invaded almost the whole of the known world at the time. Britain just branched out into new territories, and they only had the means because of leftovers from the RE.

Known to them. There were civilizations all over the world that the Romans never came close to visiting, much less conquering.

GORDON:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.

When it is stone age vs. high tech, high tech wins 9 times out of 10. Just the way things are.

Proteios1:Thereal problem is...how do we blame England's imperialism, colonization, and basically, war on religion. This is a dilly of a pickle because it really is nationalism and commerce and not religion. Hmmm. Where's an atheist. We need some revisionist history here.

You sound upset.

Considering the book covers everything from the year 197 onwards, trying to attribute one or even 10 reasons to all of the "invasions" listed over 1,815 years of history would be the kind of idiotic reductionism one would expect from a religious loony.

McManus_brothers:GORDON: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: xynix: The old Brits were awesome at nation building. If you look at the countries or places they sat on for awhile they're all successful. Though South Africa is still not comparable to India or the US it's at least a shining beacon of what the African continent -could- one day become.

Well, it's a lot easier when you eradicate the natives.

When it is stone age vs. high tech, high tech wins 9 times out of 10. Just the way things are.

Yeah, that 10th time it's always some asshole with a spear, knocking out my tanks.

I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but if it's a legitimate invasion, that doesn't mean that it resulted in colonization and British rule. The defending nation has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

If Britain was good at nation building then she would still have a few more nations under her belt.What they were good at was spreading influence with the power of their Navy. But even with that they left a trail of chaos around the globe.

/Israel alone should be proof that the Queen knew fark all bout making nations./Africa never did recover from colonization, and probably won't within our lifetimes.

...The Commonwealth? And Israel is a very nice place, on par with any Western nation.

I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but if it's a legitimate invasion, that doesn't mean that it resulted in colonization and British rule. The defending nation has ways of shutting that whole thing down.

And India doesn't count anyway - that subcontinent was practically asking for it.

Proteios1:Thereal problem is...how do we blame England's imperialism, colonization, and basically, war on religion. This is a dilly of a pickle because it really is nationalism and commerce and not religion. Hmmm. Where's an atheist. We need some revisionist history here.

it was the federal reserve act of 1913, feel free to google the sh*t out of that; meetings in secret on 'Jekyll Island down south -- alternate staff -- no name usage -- faked the reporters out by giving them bogus train station schedule for departure -- evil knows no bounds. These are the people that meet at builderburg groups every year, international bankers cuz how many currencies do we have, really: USD, Euro (toilet), Yen, ... stock markets would collapse overnight if illegal drugs were legalized because it all fuels inflation -- hello we just dumped an additional 887 BILLION (taht you know of) into the economy -- that certainly shouldn't have been needed but all the CEOs threw in their ties and shut down their companies because they wanted bonuses from their pal Dubya who stole not one but two elections under the guise of SCOTUS because -- well, the US needed Iraq's oil, goddamnit -- 2003 invasion, 2008 oil contracts signed. 5 years.

way south:If Britain was good at nation building then she would still have a few more nations under her belt.What they were good at was spreading influence with the power of their Navy. But even with that they left a trail of chaos around the globe.

If you look at the remaining countries which were under British rule you at least find a semi-functional government compared to what existed before.

Compare that with the countries which were colonized by the French, Dutch, and Spanish and look at the resultant governments.

At least the British left behind a legacy of organized government and the aspirations for functional infrastructure.

urban.derelict:it was the federal reserve act of 1913, feel free to google the sh*t out of that; meetings in secret on 'Jekyll Island down south -- alternate staff -- no name usage -- faked the reporters out by giving them bogus train station schedule for departure -- evil knows no bounds. These are the people that meet at builderburg groups every year, international bankers cuz how many currencies do we have, really: USD, Euro (toilet), Yen, ... stock markets would collapse overnight if illegal drugs were legalized because it all fuels inflation -- hello we just dumped an additional 887 BILLION (taht you know of) into the economy -- that certainly shouldn't have been needed but all the CEOs threw in their ties and shut down their companies because they wanted bonuses from their pal Dubya who stole not one but two elections under the guise of SCOTUS because -- well, the US needed Iraq's oil, goddamnit -- 2003 invasion, 2008 oil contracts signed. 5 years.

Their withdrawal from India was atrocious. Read "The Great Partition" by Yasmin Khan if you get a few spare days. Also, deliberately drawing borders inconsistant with ancient tribal territories caused much, much, bloodshed in the Middle East.

Others will fill our places,Dressed in the old light blue,We'll recollect our races,We'll to the flag be true,And youth will be still in our facesWhen we cheer for an Eton crew,And youth will be still in our facesWhen we cheer for an Eton crew.

/empire ain't over until the scullers start singing... //`spot of tea on the verandah, say what?'

puckrock2000:urban.derelict: it was the federal reserve act of 1913, feel free to google the sh*t out of that; meetings in secret on 'Jekyll Island down south -- alternate staff -- no name usage -- faked the reporters out by giving them bogus train station schedule for departure -- evil knows no bounds. These are the people that meet at builderburg groups every year, international bankers cuz how many currencies do we have, really: USD, Euro (toilet), Yen, ... stock markets would collapse overnight if illegal drugs were legalized because it all fuels inflation -- hello we just dumped an additional 887 BILLION (taht you know of) into the economy -- that certainly shouldn't have been needed but all the CEOs threw in their ties and shut down their companies because they wanted bonuses from their pal Dubya who stole not one but two elections under the guise of SCOTUS because -- well, the US needed Iraq's oil, goddamnit -- 2003 invasion, 2008 oil contracts signed. 5 years.